Brexit Chat


#519

This is the problem with both sides of the Brexit debate. Everyone lies.

A “historic” march in favour of a second Brexit referendum was attended by just a third of the number that its organisers claimed, according to an official estimate.

A debriefing document prepared by the Greater London Authority put the number of attendees at October’s People’s Vote rally at 250,000 - significantly below the campaign group’s claim that they were joined by more than 700,000 people.

[…]


(Michael) #520

Theresa May: ‘‘If the deal is voted down we are in uncharted territory - I don’t think anybody knows what would happen next’’

Andrew Marr: ‘‘We were rather hoping you would…’’

Ouch. Might have to claim for political asylum when I am in the Netherlands mid-March


(Michael) #521

Organisers always overstate

Police always understate

One of those figures best fits the viewpoint of the Telegraph

I imagine it ended up between the two figures as always


#522

That is the number from the Greater London Authority, not the Metropolitan Police.

My point is that everyone lies, leave and remain.


(MikeF) #523

‘Lies’ assumes it’s deliberately overstated rather than simple optimism. As ever, it could be one or the other.


#524

Which was then used as the basis of truth in Parliamentary debate and the mass media.


(Michael) #525

Technically yes, but it is always ultimately the police that provide the figures

Either way that was just my shorthand for the state

I could not find the actual link to the Telegraph’s FOI request, but a website not supportive of either my view or the People’s Vote had this to say (emphasis mine):

But a freedom of information request by the newspaper saw Scotland Yard inform them that: “The Greater London Authority (GLA) has included an estimated attendance figure of 250,000 in a debrief document.”


(Simon B) #526

This article really upsets me. The truth of the matter is that the people who this affects the least decided the matter for the people who it affects the most.


(Jordan) #527

I appreciate the argument and when the statistics are broken down there is a divide between the age groups in terms of who voted Leave and who voted Remain. But it is a hard pill to swallow as what age do we allow to vote on things like this? Couldn’t the same argument be said for a General Election in which you are 16/17 and you would vote say Labour and Conservatives win and change tuition fees for instance.

I have sympathy for those who were unable to vote as it may very well have swayed the vote (I voted Remain so “lost”) but we have voting ages for a reason.

For those EU citizens who have moved to the UK and are trying to obtain citizenship I am also sympathetic for as they don’t get a choice and as you say they will likely be most affected and the whole fiasco as it currently unfolds doesn’t give them any clarity as to what the future holds which is a really saddening state to be in - I couldn’t imagine it personally.


(Jonathon) #528

I think the argument here on that one is that this is nothing like a general election - if you don’t like a decision made, you (and the country) can change their minds 5 years later once the facts emerge.


(Jordan) #529

I can see the argument for sure - I suppose my question was/is what is the age we go down to/ stop at (if that is something that could be argued for).

I would say that we knew that time frame was 2 years (ish) so an argument could be made to say those who would be 18 on exit day could vote - but I just think it is a slippery slope.

Just because it is a big/ impactful does that mean we allow those who we don’t trust to vote in a General Election the trust to vote on the bigger decision?

This is a strawman I know and purely playing devil’s advocate but - we could re-join the EU so we could arguable “change our minds” - we may even be able to do it before Brexit Day in which case those 16 year olds at the time of the first referendum get a vote.

I’m not totally against the argument that those who are old enough now could vote previously - but I just think it is a slippery slope and so to not allow it in the first place is the lesser of two evils.


(Jonathon) #530

This isn’t just a big vote, this is constitution-changing, the ramifications of which weren’t (and still aren’t) known for generations to come. Rarely, if ever, have we had a vote on anything even close to this scale of significance.

Yes, we could in theory re-join, but that again will be another vote of similar level, so we know in reality it won’t happen for decades to come.

By which time the bulk of the older generation will be gone, our generation will be old, and the younger generation will have spent years clearing up after the mess of their grandparents - in the name of “taking back control”. Nice.


(Michael) #531

Yes, and they already have in Scotland (in the cases where the Scotland Act allows)

Personal view is that if you are old enough to get married, pay taxes and join the army you’re old enough to vote


(Jordan) #532

That’s exactly my point - if we don’t allow 16/17 year-olds to vote in a General Election, why would we allow them to vote in something this massive and far-reaching? I just think its a circular argument because if you let the young generation vote because they will feel the affects do you not let the older generation vote because they won’t?

I’m 100% with you here - the largest arguments that were brought forward and what we see was the rationale behind some (not all) of the Leave campaign was just comical - but then again as was Remain - and I was Remain!


(Jordan) #533

I think this is a good way to look at it and something that could get around the sense of imbalance the young feel around this vote.

I’m arguing from a specifically legal point of view that we have at the moment - you can vote at 18 for a GE so why should a Referendum vote be reduced but not the GE?

I think that from 16+ if you wanted to vote you should be able to but it has to be applied unilaterally.


(Michael) #534

Can vaguely understand why the Tories would not be particularly keen on that, but the general silence from UK-wide Labour on it is pretty shocking - no desire from them to shake up things


(Jordan) #535

I suppose its due to the fact it is so entrenched in out political system that anything against it would be heresy - Labour seem to be silent on a lot of things and just want to watch things burn in a blaze of glory :joy::fire:


(Richard) #536

I don’t suspect they want to watch things burn… it’s more that while the main group of labour might have views supporting things… Corbyn and his cronies don’t.


(Jordan) #537

I was only trying to make a loose connection to a Batman quote :joy: tbh right now it is all a bit of a mess whichever side you look at.


(Richard) #538

now that you mentioned batman… I remember the quote :wink:

It is a bit of a mess, but out of the bad bunch we have… I think we’ve got the right ones in power (this coming from someone who was a labour voter since the age of 18…I’m 34 this week).

I suspect we’ll either get a GE…or another vote, both would require an extension with to the deadline.

TLDR News have some good video’s on youtube about all of this…