News BREXIT - more good than bad or more bad than good?

[jim hardy]

am i hearing a theme in the halls of power ?

The referendum result is not binding. It is advisory. Parliament is not bound to commit itself in that same direction.

Remain will have told Leave, "you have the right to vote - but only if you vote the way we tell you."

...if you will, direct democracy versus representative democracy. And the bias of the founders was towards representative democracy—hence the Senate, hence also the electoral college and so forth. And what I believe Brexit shows, to some extent, is the danger of deciding truly consequential, even historic issues through referenda.

Governing would sure be a lot easier if we pesky commoners would just stay out of it and leave things to our betters, eh ?

The sentiment is nothing new.

Your people, sir, is nothing but a great beast!
Attributed to ALEXANDER HAMILTON, in a political argument with Thomas Jefferson.

EDIT: Quotes above are not what the PF members said themselves, but from quotes cited by them. .
I used the 'quote' button so it'd be easy to get back to the relavent posts.
No intent to mis-represent what anybody actually said. I hope nobody took offense.

Just I'm amazed at the political scrambling for position and media frenzy .


.

 

[Jonathan Scott]

The newspapers have been trying to comfort us by pointing out some of the EU rules we can escape from. I must admit that at least one of those sounds good.

EU legislation meant we can no longer buy the normal old incandescent light bulbs ("pearl" or "clear" finish 100W and 60W) in the UK, supposedly because they "waste" energy as heat (despite the fact that in the UK most of the time any light is on the heating is on as well, so if the heating is controlled by a thermostat, there is very little waste). Instead, we had to resort to CFLs which are much more expensive, contain mercury (requiring disposal as hazardous materials), often don't fit existing light fittings because of the bulky electronic part, don't come on immediately and are much dimmer than the incandescent "equivalent" bulbs, as the manufacturers deviously managed to get the ratings compared with "soft light" incandescent bulbs that effectively have a layer of something like paint on them! They are supposed to last much longer than incandescent, but even across many different makes we've had a lot of failures, including bulbs spontaneously cracking, presumably releasing the mercury vapour. This whole scheme was devised by manufacturers of CFL bulbs and accepted into EU law. At least LED-based lighting is making progress, but usually provides a very harsh light which gives weird colour effects. It's very good that lower energy bulbs are available, and in many contexts they are a good idea, but banning the old cheap and powerful incandescent bulbs from being sold is extremely unhelpful, and the primary reason for it was simply to help the profits of the CFL manufacturers.

Another weird law is that vacuum cleaners over 1600W are no longer allowed.

They tried to suggest that electric kettles might be limited in power as well to save energy (!), but nothing came of that. Perhaps someone managed to explain the physics to them.

 

[jim hardy]

EU legislation meant we can no longer buy the normal old incandescent light bulbs ("pearl" or "clear" finish 100W and 60W) in the UK, supposedly because they "waste" energy as heat (despite the fact that in the UK most of the time any light is on the heating is on as well, so if the heating is controlled by a thermostat, there is very little waste).

Another weird law is that vacuum cleaners over 1600W are no longer allowed.

They tried to suggest that electric kettles might be limited in power as well to save energy (!), but nothing came of that. Perhaps someone managed to explain the physics to them.

Bureaucrats.
Were their business worth minding
they'd mind theirs instead of yours.

It's no better in US.
Our EPA funded a student competition to find ways to reduce particulates from backyard barbecues.
A politician from Missouri, a part of our country that retains a modicum of common sense, got wind of it.
http://www.foxnews.com/leisure/2015...against-epa-pollution-emissions-for-backyard/

A Missouri state legislator wants the Environmental Protection Agency to back off of people’s backyard barbecues.
On Monday, State Senator Eric Schmitt (R) from St. Louis kicked off a #porksteakrebellion after he discovered the EPA is funding a study on propane grill emissions that suggest pit masters use a special tray to catch grease drippings and a "catalytic" filtration system to reduce air pollution, reports Fox News KTVI.

He and several others publicly ridiculed them so harshly they reversed course on that one.

Of course the idea came from ... California (where else? ) ..

The competition is called the “P3 Awards:A National Student Design Competition for Sustainability Focusing on People, Prosperity and the Planet.” The specific project was proposed by students at the University of California, Riverside; they received a $15,000 grant from the EPA in August 2014 that lasts about one more month.

https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncer_abstract...isplay.abstractDetail/abstract/10266/report/0

You Brits gave us C N Parkinson whom i read in my formative years
surely he is proud of you now.

 

[Jonathan Scott]

There's a big difference between being enabled, encouraged and given incentives to do something in a better way (which is positive) and being banned from doing it in what someone considers the wrong way (which tends to create a back-reaction). Sometimes bans seem justifiable on health grounds (e.g. indoor smoking) or environmental grounds (certain nasty chemicals) but most of the time it's not black and white. The EU needs to learn to use the carrot rather than the stick!

 

[mheslep]

...At least LED-based lighting is making progress, but usually provides a very harsh light which gives weird colour effects...

I have no time for light bulb fiats from Brussels, however:

Harsh (cold blue 4500k) light LEDs are so five years ago.
2700 Kelvin WarmWhite - 2 Pack
https://www.1000bulbs.com/category/2700k-60-watt-equal-led-light-bulbs/
Lasts 10-20 times longer than, and uses 1/5 the energy of incandecents.

 

[wrobel]

From outside it approximately looks like that EU=USSR-Gulag :)

 

[Jonathan Scott]

I have no time for light bulb fiats from Brussels, however:

Harsh (cold blue 4500k) light LEDs are so five years ago.
2700 Kelvin WarmWhite - 2 Pack
https://www.1000bulbs.com/category/2700k-60-watt-equal-led-light-bulbs/
Lasts 10-20 times longer than, and uses 1/5 the energy of incandecents.

Please don't tempt me to derail this EU topic by exploding about light bulbs! I'll just say that even with "warm white" I find colours look odd under LED light, and they don't do a good 100W yet. I watch out for developments and try things out but so far the results are far inferior to what I already had. In a hot climate, I'm sure that it's good to push energy-efficient lighting, but here it seems completely spurious. Anyway, if leaving the EU let's us have some pearl-style incandescent bulbs back, that would at least be a small comfort.

 

[Jonathan Scott]

The newspapers are pointing out that Boris Johnson is in a bit of a trap now, in that he can't answer obvious questions such as for example whether he thinks we should remain part of the EEA (European Economic Area), because either way he will alienate a large share of the Vote Leave supporters!

 

[Jonathan Scott]

I see that Boris Johnson has backed out of standing for the vacant position of UK PM.

 

[mister mishka]

Yeah, oddly enough that is not so shocking news. I am more curious to see how the UK will pull themselves out of this one, though this fracture will seem to lead to further fractures within the UK itself. I hope the people who lead / voted for Brexit take the responisibility, talk is cheap.

 

[rootone]

That Teresa May seems to be about the only potential brexit PM with at least some integrity and consistency, although I don't like her as such.
I can see here an argument for a new general election to endorse a government with a clear mandate, (or not) to exit the EU.
Trouble is the tories are divided on the issue, and the opposition is in meltdown.
It could come down to new parties having to be formed, one focused on UKIP voters and the more right wing Tories urging for out, versus a center/left/green alliance with a 'stay in' pledge.

One thing that's become clear to me is that many of the out voters in the referendum actually believed that 'Brexit' meant expulsion of 'foreigners' from the UK, most of whom are legitimate residents and are not there for any reason connected to the EU.

 

[Buckleymanor]

I see that Boris Johnson has backed out of standing for the vacant position of UK PM.

Not a surprise Gove stabbing him in the back or did he ask for it .What fun when thieves fall out.Gove is now insisting that he won't be pushed or intimidated into signing Article 50 if he is elected would seem he has the same problem as Boris it's probably just taking a little more time to sink in.Teresa May as the likely candidate now George has also backed out.Heseltine is really annoyed at Boris abandoning the field after creating the mess in the first place who can blame him.
Shame on him double shame on Gove.

 

[Buckleymanor]

am i hearing a theme in the halls of power ?

Governing would sure be a lot easier if we pesky commoners would just stay out of it and leave things to our betters, eh ?

The sentiment is nothing new.EDIT: Quotes above are not what the PF members said themselves, but from quotes cited by them. .
I used the 'quote' button so it'd be easy to get back to the relavent posts.
No intent to mis-represent what anybody actually said. I hope nobody took offense.

Just I'm amazed at the political scrambling for position and media frenzy . .

It is not so much a question of leaving things to our betters but a question of preventing self harm.Irrespective of who won or lost if you saw someone about to injure themselves you would try and prevent it no matter what democracy dictated.
I am an atheist but if I had the vote to nail JC to the cross I would not .
Just because it's democracy it does not mean it is automatically right.
Pesky commoners get it wrong as much as our betters.

 

[jim hardy]

ust because it's democracy it does not mean it is automatically right.

That's the genius of the US constitution
the balance they built in between "we the people" and "our betters" whom we democratically elect to run the republic

Our "betters " run the republic
but we pick them, even if to some offices indirectly ,
and the machinery of government is made cumbersome enough that should we botch the choice they can do only limited damage over an election cycle.

So a mistake by either the commoners or by the betters isn't irrecoverable .

Monday when the results were fresh
the reaction in "better" circles was disbelief and denial .
indicating they'd become disconnected from the man on the street
and misjudged the public mood
That was the point of my post .

Average folks want government that's fair but firm.
Even Machiavelli knew that...

A prince, therefore, must not mind incurring the charge of cruelty for the purpose of keeping his subjects united and confident; for, with a very few examples, he will be more merciful than those who, from excess of tenderness, allow disorders to arise, from whence spring murders and rapine; for these as a rule injure the whole community,

Not bad for 1513, eh ?

What little news i see of recent events in Europe suggests their perhaps excessively tender-hearted asylum policy is re-teaching Machiavelli.
Riots ? No-Go Zones? Roving gangs ?

Danish Minister for Cultural Affairs Brian Mikkelsen ...
...stated that, "In Denmark we have seen the appearance of a parallel society in which minorities practice their own medieval values and undemocratic views,

http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=34cbfbb7-eb95-4e77-a155-3904297e45de&k=87376

"The notion of multiculturalism has fallen apart," [Merkel] said prior to her election. "Anyone coming here must respect our constitution and tolerate our Western and Christian roots."

http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=34cbfbb7-eb95-4e77-a155-3904297e45de&k=87376

All things in moderation, tolerance included. There have to be boundaries . Good fences make good neighbors.
Brexit is the commoners' calling for good fences .

A decision is like a golf swing - its rightness or wrongness is determined by the follow through.
Let's see how they do with it.

old jim

 

[mister mishka]

I think "turning ones back" to the issue at hand, doesn't actually solve the problem. Reality is hard to face sometimes, especially when the root of the issue is more of a global one than nationalistic.

 

[rootone]

The backstabbing has already begun as regards who will be a new PM willing to actually implement article 50, and sound convincing about it.
There is that Gove guy, but personally I would rather vote for my local second-hand car dealer, (tho a new general election is apparently not on the table).
If the answer is Gove then it must have been a comedic trick question (imo).

As UK born now living in another EU country I am in fact an economic migrant, Probably I can get some kind of dual citizenship though.

 

[Vanadium 50]

.Irrespective of who won or lost if you saw someone about to injure themselves you would try and prevent it no matter what democracy dictated.

So people can vote, so long as they don't vote the wrong way - and then they must be stopped. Does it surprise you that some people bristle at this?

 

[Ryan_m_b]

So people can vote, so long as they don't vote the wrong way - and then they must be stopped. Does it surprise you that some people bristle at this?

If this was a general election, or one side won by a considerable margin, then I would completely agree with the sentiment. But it wasn't, it was a non-binding advisory referendum in which the margin was very close. If people didn't understand it was non-binding before then they have no one to blame but themselves rather than wailing about this being a breach of democracy.

It's rather moot though anyway, in all likelihood once the hot potato finally lands in someone's lap A50 will be called. If it's not, well then the government gets even more unstable.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Technically sure, the referendum was nonbinding. But if you hold a referendum, and then ignore the outcome, it sends the message to the populace that their opinion matters, but only if it's the right opinion.

Buckleymanor was right to call this anti-democratic. This is the same anti-democratic thread that runs through Progressivism (both instances). It replaces governmental legitimacy via the consent of the governed with government by the smartest - to protect the masses from the consequences of their own bad ideas. This is the benevolent technocracy I mentioned before. And for those who think that government by the smartest sounds like a pretty good idea, history shows it is quickly replaced by government by the strongest.

 

[Jonathan Scott]

The only thing that's clear from the outcome is that a majority of the UK population are unhappy about the EU, and that includes many like myself who voted Remain.
As the specific meaning of the "Leave" option was never clarified, Boris Johnson was able to "have his cake and eat it" by interpreting it in different ways for different purposes, despite the fact that such interpretations are mutually exclusive.
The problem is that to put "Leave" into practice, a specific interpretation is needed, but I'm certain that no interpretation can be found for which there would be majority support in the UK, especially as Scotland and Northern Ireland are against any form of Leave.
So basically many people have democratically voted for imaginary fictitious options, and the real options are far less attractive.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Technically sure, the referendum was nonbinding. But if you hold a referendum, and then ignore the outcome, it sends the message to the populace that their opinion matters, but only if it's the right opinion.

I don't agree, though I acknowledge many feel that way. I would agree if the vote wasn't so close and if it wasn't advisory. As it stands it's up to the elected representatives to make a decision on a very important, close referendum that has turned into a political Charlie Foxtrot in the following week.

 

[mheslep]

I don't agree, though I acknowledge many feel that way. I would agree if the vote wasn't so close and if it wasn't advisory. As it stands it's up to the elected representatives to make a decision on a very important, close referendum that has turned into a political Charlie Foxtrot in the following week.

The logic of that argument is that close outcomes in a referendum have no consequences, that they are no different from an extensive poll.

A referendum serves the purpose of addressing a single issue in a representative democracy, where representatives are chosen based on traditional positions across a range of issues. To ignore the referendum, forces the electorate to increasingly choose representation that they agree with on the single issue (as has been ongoing in the UK) but disagree with on the whole, leading to a country led by those with whom the majority is in large disagreement across major parties.

 

[mheslep]

... I'm certain that no interpretation can be found for which there would be majority support in the UK, especially as Scotland and Northern Ireland are against any form of Leave...

Youre certain, post referendum, that there is no majority support in the UK for leaving the EU via Article 50?

 

[Jonathan Scott]

Youre certain, post referendum, that there is no majority support in the UK for leaving the EU via Article 50?

No, I'm saying that there's no specific realistic target position (for example whether still single market or not) which would satisfy such a majority.

It appears that what most people wanted when they voted was not what was on the ballot paper but rather what was promised by Vote Leave, e.g. to stop paying the EU fees and have more money for the NHS, to prevent "unwanted" immigration and so on. They did not vote for example to bring back border controls between Northern Ireland and the Republic, but that might well be a consequence of their vote (although a united Ireland might be an interesting alternative).

 

[Buckleymanor]

So people can vote, so long as they don't vote the wrong way - and then they must be stopped. Does it surprise you that some people bristle at this?

I would agree with you but it's not that clear cut you can't say it's a clear mandate a couple of percentage points is no reason to bristle caution is required.

 

[mheslep]

Next up:

...Although the Netherlands is a founder EU member and currently holds the EU presidency, a June poll showed 54 per cent of people want a referendum on EU membership, while 48 per cent would vote to leave and 45 per cent to remain.

...A recent survey by the Pew Research Centre found that only 38 per cent of France had a favourable view of the EU, marking an astonishing negative shift in attitudes towards Brussels since the 2009 financial crisis

...a survey found that 48 per cent of Italians would opt to leave the bloc if given the opportunity of a British-style referendum.

...A recent poll found that 40 per cent of Austrians want an “Auxit” referendum. A majority of 53 per cent said if there was a referendum, they would vote to remain.

Unsurprisingly, and revealingly:

...A recent poll for Stern magazine found that just 17 per cent of Germans would vote to leave in a referendum, while 79 per cent would vote to remain

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...vote-raises-fears-of-a-tsunami-of-eu-members/

CNBC, from IPSOS poll.

 

[rootone]

Gets more intriguing all the time.
Let's suppose France and Netherlands had referendums with a similar result to UK, (indecisive but narrowly opposed to EU membership.).
So then what, EU v2.0, with UK, France and NL, as core group of the new one?, which of neccesity would be joined eventually by Ireland.
Italy is a different story, but it's not surprising just because of where they are geographically, Greece and Portugal, Spain too. (EU, v3.0?)

 

[mheslep]

A smaller group of couple countries with closer and longer historical ties probably was the place to start in the first place, and then only for trade.

 

[nsaspook]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...s-eu-referendum-petition-latest-a7128306.html

The Government has rejected a call for a second referendum on European Union membership in a petition that was signed by more than 4.1 million people following the Brexit vote.

It was the most-signed Government petition since the process was introduced in 2011.

However in an official reply, the Foreign Office said 33 million people had had their say and “the decision must be respected”.

 

[Buckleymanor]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...s-eu-referendum-petition-latest-a7128306.html

Which decision must be respected thirty tears ago we had the referendum to join the EU and they have not respected the say of the voters from that.
It is a joke!

 

[mheslep]

After 30 more years then have another go.

 

[russ_watters]

Which decision must be respected thirty tears ago we had the referendum to join the EU and they have not respected the say of the voters from that.
It is a joke!

Seriously? 30 years is enough time for the situation to change. It certainly is no a do-over vote like what people want now.

 

[Buckleymanor]

Why 30 why not 49 or 1 year the contractual obligations towards the voters are not worth the paper they are wrote on.
Lots of people will have built there business around the EU only to have them removed because of infighting within the Conservatives.
So what is the point in doing the same under the new Brexit rules only to have them removed again after yet another referendum.
You don't or won't get the point there is no point in having a referendum in the first place if you don't stick to the first result.
Not the second or third each result after the first destabilises the country and it's economy if you can not trust a referendum what can you.

 

[Buckleymanor]

Seriously? 30 years is enough time for the situation to change. It certainly is no a do-over vote like what people want now.

That is the point the situation has changed and most business within GB are more involved within the EU and never wanted a referendum in the first place.
The only reason there was one was because the Conservatives were frightened of defects to UKIP which would cause a split within the party so to appease the rebels one was offered.
The sad fact now is there is a bigger and far worse split which is likely to cause more harm, the electorate.

 

[russ_watters]

That is the point the situation has changed...

What, specifically, has changed?

...and most business within GB are more involved within the EU and never wanted a referendum in the first place.

That's do-over talk, not "the situation has changed". The vote said what it said. It represents the will of the people, to the level of which it is capable, whether the outcome pleases the people who lost or not.

 

[rootone]

One of the big arguments at the moment is that after the result the 'exit' campaigners pretty much openly admitted that much of the basis of the case was fraudulent.
There is no extra money available for the health service, There are no expulsions of 'foreigners' taking place, the rest of the world is not falling over themselves to get preferential trade deals with the UK, and guess what else, the old empire countries are not begging for the return of British dominion over them.
Still the result is what it is. and it's not unheard of that voters can persuaded by promises of milk and honey, and pots of gold at the end of the rainbow.

 

[mheslep]

Why 30 why not 49 or 1 year the contractual obligations towards the voters are not worth the paper they are wrote on.

You use the word contractual to mean the people of the UK were bound to the EU forever, and bound by the choices of people 30 years ago, as if the Article 50 exit procedure did not exist. You know, I know, and everyone else here knows this not the case so why not give it a rest?

Lots of people will have built there business around the EU only to have them removed because of infighting within the Conservatives.

The 'because' is 17 million votes to leave. The EU did enable new business, and lots of people in the UK had their businesses or jobs destroyed by EU rules.

...You don't or won't get the point there is no point in having a referendum in the first place if you don't stick to the first result

Right, then it's back to the devine right of kings. Off to the Tower with the dissent.

 

[russ_watters]

One of the big arguments at the moment is that after the result the 'exit' campaigners pretty much openly admitted that much of the basis of the case was fraudulent...

...and it's not unheard of that voters can persuaded by promises of milk and honey, and pots of gold at the end of the rainbow.

Yes, that's pretty much par for the course in politics, unfortunately.

 

[Astronuc]

One potential consequence of Britain leaving the EU, if Scotland breaks from the UK.

Britain Needs a New Place to Park Its Nukes
The U.K.’s entire nuclear arsenal lives on four submarines in Scotland. And it’s got nowhere to put them if Scotland bolts.

http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/07/10/britain-needs-a-new-place-to-park-its-nukes/Finger on the nuclear button
http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_7758000/7758347.stm

Nuclear deterrence - "If Britain is substantially destroyed by a nuclear strike and the prime minister is killed, the captain of the submarine on patrol (one is always out there, armed and ready to strike) will open his safe, take out the prime minister's instructions, and act on them."

 

[mheslep]

There is no extra money available for the health service,

No extra money at all, or that some in Exit exaggerated the amount (as you do in in reverse here) It's widely understood some 250 million euros a week goes from the UK to EU control. That will end. Surely some can go to NHS instead.

There are no expulsions of 'foreigners' taking place, the rest of the world is not falling over themselves to get preferential trade deals with the UK, and guess what else, the old empire countries are not begging for the return of British dominion over them.
Still the result is what it is. and it's not unheard of that voters can persuaded by promises of milk and honey, and pots of gold at the end of the rainbow.

I've not seen those claims from Exit leadership. New kinds of expulsions were promised? Is that all hyperbole, or do you have an example reference?

 

[mheslep]

One potential consequence of Britain leaving the EU, if Scotland breaks from the UK.

Britain Needs a New Place to Park Its Nukes
The U.K.’s entire nuclear arsenal lives on four submarines in Scotland. And it’s got nowhere to put them ...

There's been a plausible suggestion that, in the event of Scottish separation, the subs use US ports.

 

[rootone]

I've not seen those claims from Exit leadership. New kinds of expulsions were promised? Is that all hyperbole, or do you have an example reference?

I can't remember a specific claim to that effect from one the campaign leaders, but the 'foreigners go home' meme was pretty much right at the top of the agenda in online discussions sponsored by popular right wing newspapers such as 'The Daly Mail' and 'The Sun'.
However the exit campaign leadership definitely did say on several occasions that the one of the primary aims was abandonment of freedom of movement to the UK for citizens of other EU countries.
For some reason this public ire seemed to be focused on Turkish immigrants, and Turkey isn't even an EU member state.

 

[epenguin]

Oh well, a lot of what has been said is now outdated or by the way. The rival has withdrawn, we now have a new PM in waiting, she might take up office in matter of days. To have been without a government with the authority to do anything about our relations with Europe (and let's not mention, no Opposition either) until September was a crazy situation we risked being in.

It was remarkable that out of half a dozen candidates every single one has looked bad and had ugly things exposed in the campaign. (In the case of Ms. May and one other the egg on their face was old and dried.)

Ms. May is really an Outer, only posing as a Remainder. She was very eloquently quiet during the campaign and has said some extraordinary things about immigration, as if it had had nothing to do with her as key Minister like she had not belonged at all to the government of which she was the Number Three! I am sorry the winner was not Johnson, who instead is a Remainder posing as an Outer. He might have had the imagination and skill to be able to pull off a Remain under acceptable conditions. (However I couldn't vote for something on the basis of it having a 1 in 10 chance of happening). Ms. May is said to be tough, but I have never seen in her much indication of flair or imagination.

Anyway she has now made it clear that as the referendum vote was for Brexit that is what it will be. So she now just has the job of: forming a government; forming a policy; forming negotiating and policy aims, teams, strategies.

 

[Buckleymanor]

You use the word contractual to mean the people of the UK were bound to the EU forever, and bound by the choices of people 30 years ago, as if the Article 50 exit procedure did not exist. You know, I know, and everyone else here knows this not the case so why not give it a rest?

The 'because' is 17 million votes to leave. The EU did enable new business, and lots of people in the UK had their businesses or jobs destroyed by EU rules.Right, then it's back to the devine right of kings. Off to the Tower with the dissent.

It is the case Article 50 only came into existence in 2009.

!5 million to stay an employment record the highest it has ever been before we joined the EU GB had a pretty bad economy now it's second within the EU.

It's not the divine right of kings more like the public was sold a sick pup and you support it.
I don't imagine it will get better any time soon.
Just a side observation Anthea Leadsom has quit the race for PM .I will give it to Brexit lot they are exceptional quitters .

 

[Buckleymanor]

What, specifically, has changed?

That's do-over talk, not "the situation has changed". The vote said what it said. It represents the will of the people, to the level of which it is capable, whether the outcome pleases the people who lost or not.

It does not represent the will of the people any more than the election as Mrs, May as prime minister.When push comes to shove as far as the Conservatives are concerned party comes before the will of the people.
They don't even get a vote and if they do it is ignored.

 

[russ_watters]

It does not represent the will of the people...

Huh? What is a referendum if not an attempt to gauge the will of the people? If it had gone the way you wanted it to, would you still say that?

Also, since you didn't say what has changed, can I take that as a retraction of that claim?

 

[mheslep]

However the exit campaign leadership definitely did say on several occasions that the one of the primary aims was abandonment of freedom of movement to the UK for citizens of other EU countries.

Sure, which is different from expelling people already legally arrived in country. That's not going to happen.

From the evidence I've seen, aside from the inflation of the UK payment to the EU made by one group, the case for Exit by Exit leadership was fairly made.

 

[mheslep]

It's not the divine right of kings more like the public was sold a sick pup and you support it.

You stated the country was under some kind of contract to stick to the first result, this, despite the exit clause agreed to Lisbon by the UK. If so, who are you to say when time begins? Why can I not choose the Stuart's proclamation of the DRoK, find a bloke named Stuart, and have you step and fetch for him?

I understand you don't like the outcome, fine, your opinion is as valid as another's and more than mine as I don't live in the UK. But the rest: 17 million people don't count, it was all a fraud by Exit, against the contract - that's all nonsense.

 

[Buckleymanor]

Huh? What is a referendum if not an attempt to gauge the will of the people? If it had gone the way you wanted it to, would you still say that?

Also, since you didn't say what has changed, can I take that as a retraction of that claim?

I don't think you are really interested in what happened if won't to believe that this was a necessary referendum when the rest of Europe has managed to cooperate fore the sake of the greater good then fine.
As for what has changed the Lisbon treaty has been hijacked by a minority to further right wing politics.

 

[rootone]

Ah well, at least there now seems to be the prospect of sane negotiation replacing sloganeering and shouting now that a replacement PM has been decided.
Theresa May has still to announce what sort of 'Brexit' she favours though, (and tbh she has expressed in the past both of remain and exit sentiments)
Options range from the Norway model, a sort of associate membership which still requires freedom of movement,
Through to plain WTO rules, in which UK has no special access at all to EU markets, and has to set up new bilateral trade deals with individual countries, probably involving tariffs on both exports and imports,.