to think the Remainers aren't going to take this lying down and we won't leave

[SybilEngineer]

A million plus more people voted leave than remain but still over 16 million voted in. And many of the people this will affect - the under 18s - didn't get a say.

The majority of our elected representatives want us to remain as does our capital city.

The EU wants us to remain and once the leaders have stopped throwing their toys around they will realise they need to reform the EU and make changes that will keep UK and all the other eurosceptic people in.

Today has been a body blow for us remainers but, we're shot of Cameron, so we can re-group and start the fight to remain in the EU but with changes that much of Europe wants.

Yet another hysterical post. It was impossible for the 'leave' team to have a firm plan because none of them knew who would be in charge in the event of a leave vote and it would be impossible for them to have a plan which would be forced onto people unwilling or unable to implement it. It also ignores the fact that any plan would be virtually useless because so much depends on external factors outside the control of anyone in the UK. What Remainers are asking for is not a plan, but a crystal ball.

No 'pledges' have been broken and the two statements are contradictory - if you have no plan how can you plan to break pledges? The reality is that it's far too early to say if any promises will be broken and the ones that supposedly have weren't promises or pledges in the first place and have only been 'broken' via off the cuff comments by people who have no power to either keep them or break them anyway (Farage).

The financial impact isn't quite clear as yet, but it certainly doesn't seem to be as gloomy as the doom mongers tried to claim.

As for the demands that 'not enough of the electorate voted for this'. Well we haven't had referendums on the treaties that have taken us into this situation piecemeal so they had the support of 0% of the electorate. It's patent bollocks anyway which is clearly a matter of creating a tyranny of a minority by skewing voting rules to favour the more unpopular option unfairly and would quite possibly not legally kosher anyway. And by having to have the referendum so overtly rigged in it's favour it would undermine the EU project and the legitimacy of UK membership that much it would render both as worthless and corrupt anyway.

Just more hysterical sound bites.

How can you say no pledges were broken? Where is the 350m for the NHS, or the ability to control Immigration? Personally I think you'd have to be a moron to belive such tosh I'm the first place but it was scrawled on the loony leave bus!
As for legitimacy of the vote the fact remains that 30% of the electorate would not be sufficient to lead the tube drivers out on strike but is enough to destroy the country, how is that democratic?

Nobody ever promised £350 million to the NHS. They said that was how much we would save from the EU membership fee (which ignored the rebate). They said it could be used for the NHS and 'our other priorities'. Nobody ever promised the full £350 million to the NHS. Even on the leave bus the £350 million and the NHS claims were next to each other but seperate - there was no promise to spend the full £350 million on the NHS and anyone with eyes can see that unless they are wilfully misinterpreting it. And the person who said it was a mistake was Farage. It was an ambiguous statement anyway as 'mistake' actually appeared to refer to the £350 million savings claim rather than saying that promising money to the NHS was a mistake. But that's irrelevant anyway as Nigel Farage has absolutely zero authority and no say whatsoever in anything that's going to happen or where any money is spent.

It's rubbish to say pledges on immigration have been broken either. Because we quite simply don't know and it's far to early to say. We're really not going to know until long into a process of negotiation. So to say that pledges on that have been broken is misleading scaremongering.

That crap about 30% not being enough for a tube drivers strike is totally irrelevant. You are the person asking for something undemocratic by demanding rule changes which would monumentally skew the results to your favoured point of view after the fact. If the rules were changed to basically make it impossible for leave to ever win even though staying was more unpopular it would make an absolute laughing stock of democracy in this country. It would the kind of show referendum dictatorships have.

bill come to the pub with me. I am struggling to find like minded souls right now

I would love to come to the pub with you. How will we recognise each other? The only two people with skinheads, England shirts, bomber jackets and ASBOs in there? . I'm sure our Remain friends would reckon so.

So Bill, what exactly do you hope to gain from an exit from the EU? Details please no "Red tape" or "sovereignty" generalisations? As for the 30% arguments, a major constitutional change should require a majority decision. Good god if 30% can't carry a vote to strike ot shouldn't be sufficient to exit the EU.

bill we are the little englanders, harking back to the good old days

engineers I'm delighted we are off the inexorable creaking train towards the EU superstate. In a nutshell.

I think that we will have a more representative democracy. Historically speaking if you look at states with large population size like China or Imperial Russia or the USSR they have been unwieldy, difficult to control, have normally involved quite a degree of oppression and have found it incredibly difficult to look after the interests of disparate groups of people fairly.

The USA has done it well, but it's still much smaller than the EU. And they have developed working coherent systems which give a great degree of autonomy at state level whilst still maintaining a cohesive whole. The EU system is nowhere near as admistratively effective, cohesive or representative as the US system and they appear to have little interest in becoming so. It doesn't seem to be an organisation which is interested in improving or making itself more attractive to either member states or their citizens but rather one which seems to be determined to maintain itself with all it's faults by a system of threats, blackmail and financial control. The renegotiations showed it offered little flexibility or recognition towards individual states needs. I'm not comfortable with being part of that.

Also, looking at how the UK struggles to reconcile it's disparate parts and the interests of a pensioner in Glasgow, a lone parent in MW in the north east and an affluent southerner for example - well I really doubt an organisation the size of the EU can really look after the interests of a fisherman in Spain, a working Mum renting in the north east, a farmer in Italy and a Roma in Romania with anything like equality or fairness.

I would like to see a reduction in migration as it's not sustainable at current levels. Nobody has offered any sort of coherent plan for how we will deal with a population growth the size of Iceland per annum without it affecting the very poorest in society in terms of wages, employment, housing and services. I would rather vote for a possibility of change on that level rather than vote for a definite no to any change ever - which is what a remain vote was.

The tube strike analogy is irrelevant, a totally different thing, and I believe something that particular electorate (union members) weren't very happy about.

Perhaps a better analogy might be the last EU elections in 2014? The turnout for that was 35.6% of the entire UK electorate for all candidates. 28% of those votes were for UKIP on an explicit 'leave' platform. Which means only 25% of the electorate voted for their MEPs. By your logic that means that the EU parliament has absolutely no mandate from the UK electorate and it's authority shouldn't be recognised in the UK.

But of course, you won't accept that logic, because it's not actually logic you want is it? You just want to get your own way, nothing to do with fairness or democracy - just a desire to force your will on people who disagree with you.

Bill
I certainly do not agree. The EU does far more to maintain equality between a WM in the north east and a fisherman in Spain than could be achieved by separate countries sparring for position. Closer integration will ensure equality. As for the issue of population movement, as part of the EU we can fight to correct the two problems causing the issues. The first being abuse of workers (namely abuse of immigrant workers) and secondly by working for equality between all member states, piticsl and economic. We are all European and we have the chance to build a strong future.

Oops!
That should have read "the second problem being the inequality between member states, political and economic."

The EU does far more to maintain equality between a WM in the north east and a fisherman in Spain than could be achieved by separate countries sparring for position. Closer integration will ensure equality

Can you give a few examples of how it has done this in practice please? Rather than just saying that it does?

The first being abuse of workers (namely abuse of immigrant workers) and secondly by working for equality between all member states, piticsl and economic

Again, could you please demonstrate how the EU is trying to achieve equality between member states? Its treatment of Greece and Ireland and other smaller states doesn't really give the impression of equality, but of poorer, smaller states being subjugated by and made beholden to richer more powerful states.

At the 27 member Brexit talks this week, for example, the scheduled speakers were all from larger European states and smaller states like Ireland had no input. So much for 'equality'.

Ditto Merkel's call out to refugees - which had a hugely negative impact on neighbouring countries who will, never, ever have a chance to remove her as only Germans get to vote her in or out. Yet as German Chancellor she wields huge influence over their lives and decisions that effect them but has zero accountability to them.

The EU has absolutely no intention of creating equality between member states. How can you complain about 'pledges' being broken when you voted on the basis of something that isn't even on the table?

The strive for equality is the process of standardisation and integration. EU wide policy on employment, social rights and housing lead to equality. Free movement of people and goods lead to equality - when abusive practise by the unscrupulous are controlled. For example the working time directive, the EU push to regulate banking both support this. The technical standardisation within the EU has also provided a great support to STEM in both academia and bussiness. Yes the EU needs to change but we can't influence change from outside. The leave side don't realize half of what we risk losing now and in the future.

engineer free movement of people leads to equality? Good lord, woman, do you really believe this?

Maybe after a hundred years. But in an area as vast and diverse as the current EU? You are having a laugh.

Try asking the 48 per cent unemployed youth in Greece about EU policy on equality.....

Making it more difficult to move to a country where there is a need for Labour is not going to do anything to improve equality. The major issue with free movement has been abusive employment practices. The use of zero hour contracts, forcing people to be self employed when in reality they are owned and run by a single firm and the use of hangers, these are the abuses we need to stamp out accross the union. How anyone can fail to see the opportunities that the EU offers is beyond me. Just look at university, ifgyou can't afford to pay 9k a year you could study on a top notch German or Austrian university for about 200 euros a year... often in English! Out of the EU you have to pay the non EU fees often many thousands of pounds. If you can't find work in your home country you have the oportunity to work in any of the other 27 states without impediment. The point is an open door goes both ways!

The point is an open door goes both ways!
For those of us in the UK maybe. For the poorer parts of the EU (Romania/ Bulgaria etc) having their most ambitious young people all leaving will enforce the inequality for those left behind.

Forgive me for butting in.

I have just watched Michael Dougan unpack the lies of the Leave campaign.

How could anyone sane possibly be glad they voted for such a tall story? Or is Michael lying?

The USA has done it well, but it's still much smaller than the EU. And they have developed working coherent systems which give a great degree of autonomy at state level whilst still maintaining a cohesive whole.

which is why we have the situation where Detroit has gone bust and they cant even drink the water.

"Nobody ever promised £350 million to the NHS. They said that was how much we would save from the EU membership fee (which ignored the rebate). They said it could be used for the NHS and 'our other priorities'. Nobody ever promised the full £350 million to the NHS. Even on the leave bus the £350 million and the NHS claims were next to each other but seperate - there was no promise to spend the full £350 million on the NHS and anyone with eyes can see that unless they are wilfully misinterpreting it."

Both campaigns used misleading figures. I don't think people believed in the literal truth of the numbers quoted although they could see the thinking behind them. We are all used to marketing and advertising so we use our common sense when we vote.

My point was simply to show that it's a load of bollocks to say that the Leave campaign didn't misuse that figure.

There is a difference, I think, in the degree of mendacity between those two pictures. The numbers for the £4,300 forecast were based on economic modelling that (because it looks into the future) is always going to come with a degree of uncertainty. That's just the nature of forecasting. They made matters worse by translating the numbers into a 'household figure' that they thought people would be more able to understand (as we saw with the success of the '£350m a week' figure, they weren't wrong that it needed to be placed in context - people confuse what are actually relatively small sums when it comes to the costs of national government with large ones because they 'sound big'). However, the assumptions behind the numbers were give at length in a document, which went into a lot more detail about how they came to those figures, and quite rightly too.

The '£350m for the NHS' was not a matter of forecasting but of policy and it was a direct, brazen lie. There is no other way of putting that.

"I don't think people believed in the literal truth of the numbers "

I strongly disagree. I think lots of people believed the 350 million figure, and that the money would be spent on the NHS. We know the 350 million figure was a lie (since it excludes the rebate, and will not now be spent on the NHS anyway), whereas we don't yet know how close the £4300 figure is to the truth, since we haven't left the EU, and therefore the full impact on the economy has yet to be felt.

We know the 350 million figure was a lie (since it excludes the rebate, and will not now be spent on the NHS anyway), whereas we don't yet know how close the £4300 figure is to the truth

!!!

That £4300 figure is worked out by taking a guess at some future loss of GDP and then dividing it between all the households in the UK. Do you really think that Britain's GDP is shared out equally between the UK's households? It's not just a lie it's a rotten, stinking lie aimed at frightening poorer people. Luckily they are not stupid.

The lie about the rebate was clearly debunked during the campaign. I'll say it again. People who vote are not stupid. Please stop thinking they are!

The point is that the Treasury, like most mainstream economists, forecasted the economy shrinking. While forecasters disagree about the exact figure, there was an overwhelming consensus that the effects would be negative. So the take-home message was still accurate and supported by both a majority of expert opinion. I agree that splitting the effect on GDP per household was a mistake. However, given the stupidity of the voting public, I can see how they were desperate to find some way to convey to people that a shrinking economy actually meant a personal impact on households. I think they misjudged it badly and it backfired, but it's not the same as openly lying.

I do think there's a moral question here. I'm staggered that anyone can defend lying on the grounds that 'no-one believes the figures anyway'. Leaving aside the fact that this is blatantly untrue (plenty of people bought that line), it raises questions about the ethics of someone who can argue that the truth simple doesn't matter. I would not like to think anyone was raising children with those ethical precepts.