May is nearly out and so is May

[burning dog]

Really what has happened re Brexit, you could never make it up. I question all these self righteous politicians who say it would be betraying the electorate who had democratically voted to leave. If that were the case itvwould have been sorted long ago. Lust for power has overtaken all that and thus the mess we are in, and the cowardly bully boys are winning and the electorate will, whatever the outcome, be paying!

I know "The holy 17 million" as if the 16 million count for nothing. What about those who didn't vote in the referendum ? Parliament represents all of them.

Possible conclusion. Referendums (as now appears to be the plural ) are bad. They're called plebiscites when "baddies" use them. People have been saying it's the same in general elections. a 51% can deliver a Govt, but in that case there are 300 odd MPs speaking up for the losers

[gurnemanz]

You may care about some invisible trade, free movement of students to be educated in other countries, even tours by Symphony Orchestras
cold be regarded as such, though we might regard them as cultural exchanges. I'm not sure how these will be affected in the long run. How much does anyone know?

Student exchanges in no-deal Brexit threat
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-47131426

... and of course the majority of current undergraduates will have had no vote in the referendum that will determine their future, having been under 18 three years ago.

[Bryn]

I feel it to be important to bear in mind that a majority of the electorate did not vote to leave the EU. 37.5% does not constitute a majority and cannot legitimately be held to represent ‘the will of the people’. 62.5% of the electorate did not vote to leave. I contend that failing to vote can reasonably be held to indicate that one is basically content with the status quo.

[burning dog]

True Bryn

[french frank]

I was taking "trade" in the Gongian sense: I don't think he was including FoM and cultural exchanges as being a "peculiarly British obsession".

But in the end one can see that any Brexit 'discussion' circles round and round repeating itself. We (ourselves) 'know' that Brexit, deal or no deal, is a thoroughly bad idea - and we can recite the reasons. We 'know' the referendum was an undemocratic swindle and that we, the Remainers were cheated by liars and deceivers. But in our echo chamber what does it achieve - other than, possibly, with some people, relieve frustration - to keep repeating the same thing: we was robbed? I spend a lot of time in another political echo-chamber: I would love to eavesdrop on a pro-Brexit echo-chamber to see whether they 'justify' their opinions and what factual basis they use for their arguments.

BUT BUT BUT: I would love to discuss tuition fees and the Liberal Democrats here, with people who have open minds on the subject: doing so here is just like discussing Brexit with Brexiteers: people brush away the facts it doesn't suit them to accept.

You may care about some invisible trade, free movement of students to be educated in other countries, even tours by Symphony Orchestras
cold be regarded as such, though we might regard them as cultural exchanges. I'm not sure how these will be affected in the long run. How much does anyone know?

Student exchanges in no-deal Brexit threat
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-47131426

[eighthobstruction]

Speech promoting European Unity

https://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/102675

For hundreds of years the peoples of Britain have been writing history. Do we want future generations to continue to write history or are they simply going to have to read it.

If we fail, they will read how we broke faith with both the present and the past.

If we fail and the British people vote ‘No’ to the European Community, they will read how there was a defeat for co-operation between nations, and how there was a victory for the tribunes of the Left.

They will read how extremism won over commonsense. For it is purely common sense to belong to a community working together in peace on economic and political issues that concern us all.

It is purely commonsense to have access to secure sources of food supplies, when as a nation we have to import half our food.

It is surely commonsense to belong to the Community that is the largest trading and aiding unit in the world, and play our part in that Community.

It is surely commonsense for Britain to continue to play a part in the Council of Europe.

It is purely commonsense that we should now listen also to the Commonwealth—those Nations who twice this century, have come to Britain's aid to defend democracy in Europe.

Not one of them now want us to leave. The Commonwealth wants us to stay in. Britain has made a vital contribution to the past. She has a contribution to make to the future. It will be bigger in Europe than alone.

....well you are certainly putting some time into this bd....thankyou....it is going to be a long haul, just like Austerity is only now really showing a body low on blood, plus poverty and social care suffering beyond safe limits - what ever happens transitions etc negotiations will keep this dogs dinner being consumed....a forlorn hope is that changes at the commission etc will be to our advantage, or better still stayin EU and fight the commission....Then again by tomorrow we will know far better the make up of new parliament....

[burning dog]

Remain was a hard sell to the undecided as many Remainers are not great Europhiles "Better the devil you know" "We are not deep into Europe (no Euro no Schengen)" "Lets fix it from the inside" dont stir the heart on the stump. Thatchers 1975 rallying cry "We are bigger in Europe than Alone" is the real bone of contention and something I can get behind wholeheartedly. The only Thatcher slogan worth repeating IMO

[oddoneout]

I feel it to be important to bear in mind that a majority of the electorate did not vote to leave the EU. 37.5% does not constitute a majority and cannot legitimately be held to represent ‘the will of the people’. 62.5% of the electorate did not vote to leave. I contend that failing to vote can reasonably be held to indicate that one is basically content with the status quo.

Something which 'my' MP chooses to ignore in his pontifications. I have yet to have a response to my objection to his false interpretation and use of the stats. I understand your 'basically content' contention but I'm not sure it applies to all in that group.

[oddoneout]

I find a kind of grim humour, which may occasionally result in some low-level punnery, quite a good way of coping with Br*x*t which, let's face it, is gonna be around for a long, long time - possibly for ever. You can check out any time you like but you can never leave …..

I've found John Crace in the Guardian helpful in supplying gallows humour; being able to laugh out loud at some bon mot, new acronym or acid summary does much to provide a way out of the low spirits induced by the activities in the Westminster swamp.

[Once Was 4]

I feel it to be important to bear in mind that a majority of the electorate did not vote to leave the EU. 37.5% does not constitute a majority and cannot legitimately be held to represent ‘the will of the people’. 62.5% of the electorate did not vote to leave. I contend that failing to vote can reasonably be held to indicate that one is basically content with the status quo.

Correct. It was the will of a small majority of those who bothered to vote. Everybody else abstained. In my MU days it was drummed into us that abstainers support the majority decision of those who come down on one side or the other. And a majority of 1 is a majority. This was actually meant to encourage people to vote and not to sit on the fence (like a certain party leader sainted by some - happily seen right through by many others - did) I bore people by telling them that people have died so that we can use our votes.

[LeMartinPecheur]

Something which 'my' MP chooses to ignore in his pontifications.

I've got an MP like that too! Aren't we lucky?

[french frank]

I contend that failing to vote can reasonably be held to indicate that one is basically content with the status quo.

I contend that the entire conduct of the referendum was undemocratic, and sloppily set up and agreed to by politicians. Like First Past The Post which allows, invariably, a party which most people didn't vote for and don't want to form a majority government, and carry out what a majority of the people don't want.

But, legally, the concept of 'Silence signifies consent' can be upheld if those who abstain are made fully aware of the consequences of that abstention. In this case, people had no grounds to suppose that the decision to Remain or Leave would NOT be decided by a straight majority of the votes cast; therefore in not voting they were (as I understand it) voluntarily sacrificing the right to have any sort of interpretation put upon their abstention, or for their wishes to be considered at all.

The damage was done long before the voting started; and furthermore once the campaign began it became vulnerable to corrupt practices without that altering the Faustian pact: winner takes all.

[cloughie]

I know "The holy 17 million" as if the 16 million count for nothing. What about those who didn't vote in the referendum ? Parliament represents all of them.

Possible conclusion. Referendums (as now appears to be the plural ) are bad. They're called plebiscites when "baddies" use them. People have been saying it's the same in general elections. a 51% can deliver a Govt, but in that case there are 300 odd MPs speaking up for the losers

Well yes, this one was only called because of a government running scared of losing power.

[oddoneout]

I know "The holy 17 million" as if the 16 million count for nothing. What about those who didn't vote in the referendum ? Parliament represents all of them.

Possible conclusion. Referendums (as now appears to be the plural ) are bad. They're called plebiscites when "baddies" use them. People have been saying it's the same in general elections. a 51% can deliver a Govt, but in that case there are 300 odd MPs speaking up for the losers

Would that it were that many...In 2015 Cons 36.9%, in 2017 42.3%. And not that many to speak for the losers unless they all voted Labour. In 2015 Labour got 30.4% of the vote and 'others' got 32.7%, but that didn't translate into near equal shares of representation.
At least my'other' MEP vote had some chance of counting.

[french frank]

At least my'other' MEP vote had some chance of counting.

A chance, yes probably. But after campaigning (halfheartedly) for a change in the voting system to AV, I wouldn't fancy having to explain the D'Hondt method to the average UK voter!