Why are leavers so angry

Doshwaster

armchaireconomist wrote: »

You can exercise your right to "moan and complain" about the result all you want. The fact of the matter is the majority voted to leave, and to block that is fundamentally undemocratic. The petulant and quite frankly childish reaction of some "remainers" post-referendum is simply fuelling the angst and uncertainty they're so opposed to.

Yes, the Leave Campaign won. Congratulations to them. The vast majority of people who supported Remain have accepted the result and the need make the best of the situation.

However, as we move forward we need to find a definition of "leave" since none was specified on the ballot. We all have an interest in shaping that answer - not just the 52-pecenters and not just the Bexiteers in government.

ruggedtoast

Graham_Devon wrote: »

The very fact that this thread has been started surely shows the direction the vitriol is coming from?

There you go, a brace of thanks from all the house monopolising right wing boomers. I hope you are happy with yourself Graham.

You used to be one of us.

mrginge

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

I'd like to know more about your sides belief that democracy stops the moment you win a vote....

Should the public not have the right to change it's mind and vote on that change accordingly?

What do you mean by 'my side'?
It's all about division with you isn't it. All about who's right (you of course) and who's wrong (anyone who disagrees with you).

Why don't you try and be a bit more conciliatory. Maybe a first step at admitting that your privileged world view is not shared by or experienced by many millions of people. Perhaps then you can move forward with the rest of us instead of being so grumpy?

Anyway, to answer your specific point. I do of course believe that the public have the right to change their mind and I look forward to the next general election when they will be given the opportunity to do so.
As a believer in democracy I will accept the decision of that election with good grace and not continually harp on about how wrong everyone else is and please can we have another go because I've got a graph that shows how awful things are going to be and boo hoo hoo oh no thick people have put my vast fortunate at risk boo hoo hoo.

Senseicads

Doshwaster wrote: »

Yes, the Leave Campaign won. Congratulations to them. The vast majority of people who supported Remain have accepted the result and the need make the best of the situation.

However, as we move forward we need to find a definition of "leave" since none was specified on the ballot. We all have an interest in shaping that answer - not just the 52-pecenters and not just the Bexiteers in government.

This! There are still 16 million of us that voted to remain, are we now longer entitled a say into how a post Brexit Britain should look? I still pay my taxes, I still have a say! Holding the government accountable for their actions, putting them under proper scrutiny for their decisions is exactly what an opposition should do. Its what parliament was designed to do. How very undemocratic of the leavers to say that this is not an appropriate thing to allow. Regardless of the decisions made with respect of EEA membership, Immigration, EU citizenship and all the other minutia that need to be ironed out with a triggering of Article 50, we still have a say in how we want our country to look like in the future, no matter how much leavers dislike this viewpoint. THAT is democracy.


No one serious is talking about not triggering article 50 after the result. WE are wanting to have a say in what that future looks like.

mrginge

Senseicads wrote: »

This! There are still 16 million of us that voted to remain, are we now longer entitled a say into how a post Brexit Britain should look? I still pay my taxes, I still have a say! Holding the government accountable for their actions, putting them under proper scrutiny for their decisions is exactly what an opposition should do. Its what parliament was designed to do. How very undemocratic of the leavers to say that this is not an appropriate thing to allow. Regardless of the decisions made with respect of EEA membership, Immigration, EU citizenship and all the other minutia that need to be ironed out with a triggering of Article 50, we still have a say in how we want our country to look like in the future, no matter how much leavers dislike this viewpoint. THAT is democracy.


No one serious is talking about not triggering article 50 after the result. WE are wanting to have a say in what that future looks like.

Congratulations. I can exclusively reveal that we have an instituation called 'parliament' that will do exactly what you asked for. This instituation contains a number of people who's job it is to specifically question and interrogate the actions of the government. And they can if they wish throw out the government by a simple majority vote. How absolutely spiffing!

BobQ

Sapphire wrote: »

And you'll continue to hear the term 'subvert democracy' and similar until such efforts cease. It's disgusting that the citizens of European countries were forced into this ill-conceived project called the EU without their permission, and without being informed that it would involve loss of sovereignty. An important matter such as this should have been put to the vote in each country, with the aims of the project being clearly spelled out.

The people (electors of the day) elected the Government that took us into the EEC and those representatives passed the law that took us in (that was the democratic process).

The public voted by a 2/3 majority to retain membership of the EEC in 1974 (that was a democratic process).

There was no forcing involved.

The Treaty of Rome was written in 1957 and signed by the UK in 1972. Contrary to the way the Leave adherents have portrayed it, there was never any doubt in 1957, in 1972 or in 1974 that membership was about more than trade.

In signing the Treaty the six nations declared

DETERMINED to lay the foundations of an ever-closer union among the peoples of Europe,

RESOLVED to ensure the economic and social progress of their countries by common action to eliminate the barriers which divide Europe,

There was no doubt that this ever closer union involved pooling sovereignty.

RESOLVED by thus pooling their resources to preserve and strengthen peace and liberty, and calling upon the other peoples of Europe who share their ideal to join in their efforts,

ARTICLE 3 stated unequivocally that the EEC would involve:

(b) the establishment of a common customs tariff and of a common commercial policy towards third countries;
(c) the abolition, as between Member States, of obstacles to freedom of movement for persons, services and capital;

This was the same Treaty we signed in 1972. The idea that we never understood what it meant is frankly fatuous. What does the section bold mean if it does not involve pooled sovereignty?

Now I respect the right of the present electorate to make a different decision as we have done in 2016, but please do not re-write history by pretending that our decision to join in 1972 was made without understanding what we were doing or that we were subsequently conned by the EU.

Cornucopia

Senseicads wrote: »

This! There are still 16 million of us that voted to remain, are we now longer entitled a say into how a post Brexit Britain should look? I still pay my taxes, I still have a say! Holding the government accountable for their actions, putting them under proper scrutiny for their decisions is exactly what an opposition should do. Its what parliament was designed to do.

Of course you do. Over to the official opposition, then... ... .... ... .. ... zzzzz

How very undemocratic of the leavers to say that this is not an appropriate thing to allow. Regardless of the decisions made with respect of EEA membership, Immigration, EU citizenship and all the other minutia that need to be ironed out with a triggering of Article 50, we still have a say in how we want our country to look like in the future, no matter how much leavers dislike this viewpoint. THAT is democracy.

There are at least four parts to what is going on.

- A democratic part e.g. saying that post-Brexit we should ensure that we have a proper plan in place for dealing with the citizens of EU countries in the UK (and UK citizens in the EU).

- A semi-undemocratic part e.g. seeking to influence the post-Brexit environment to make it as much like it was before as possible. Thereby defeating the purpose of a clear yes/no ballot.

- Undemocratic whinging about the result and how it is all lies and ignorance (and worse).

- Taking no account whatsoever of one of the key fears of the electorate (the completely disproportionate political, cultural and economic influence of the metropolitan elite) through the metropolitan elite seeking to interfere with the delivery of the ballot result in the Courts. This was a completely unnecessary exercise of privilege and the notion that the sovereignty of Parliament required enforcement from the outside is circular nonsense. If these people have so much legal resource to spare, let them fight for something worthwhile.

No one serious is talking about not triggering article 50 after the result. WE are wanting to have a say in what that future looks like.

How do you plan to do that?

ruggedtoast

He that pays the piper calls the tune.

Brexiteers will do well to remember this.

Herzlos

mrginge wrote: »

I would like to know more about your belief that people with limited life expectancy should be prevented from having an opinion.

How should we structure general elections?

Should the terminally ill just be banned straight off?

Should we all have to go through a medical to determine if we were likely to see out the resulting parliament?

If a 'young' person dies does that mean we can knock their vote out or does this only apply to old people?

What is your age cut off for elderly?

I didn't say that those with a shorter life expectancy should be denied a vote, but you must be able to understand why the younger generations feel robbed that an older generation voted against them, for what will have minimal impact on the older generation* but massive impacts on the future generations.


*The older generations tend to have more wealth, and don't need to directly deal with things like getting on the property market, getting a job, getting an education. Then there's the statistical fact that by the time we've actually finished negotiating this, more "leavers" will have died of old age than "remainers". Push things back far enough using just the demographics and no cultural change at it'd take less than 10 years for the vote to shift from leave to remain.

Given that; that by the time we actually leave and the shockwaves are being felt, the majority will actually want to remain. Can you understand why a lot of younger remainers are upset?

.string.

I wonder how many of the 16 million who voted remain are putting their weight behind the decision to ensure that it is a success for the UK?

In principle all should be doing that, and indeed one way would be to give constructive commentary on which option available is chosen. But carrying on about how wrong the decision was and regurgitating the old battles does not help; it could damage our prospects. United we stand and all that.