I find it hard to comprehend people voted one way or the other thinking it may not stick.... that's a pretty reckless game to play. I feel the politicians made it clear it would stick as others have quoted. I remember much of these speeches from the time so mustve been prominent. If people weren't sure then they should've either abstained or voted remain in my opinion. If you're unsure about a job prospect or a house move, you don't jump ship on a whim, even if you're not happy with your current situation. Being missold something by remain/leave campaigners however is completely different and have every sympathy for those on either side that feel misled.
Maybe, but it was actually in the wording of the bill presented to parliament, as documented in Hansard at the time. Should have been made more obvious, I'll grant you.....
I find it intriguing that 68% of Barnsley voted Leave, yet 60% of this forum voted Remain. Such disparity among people primarily from this area.
Even on the night before the vote Cameron's closing address said. "Above all, it’s about our economy. "It will be stronger if we stay. "It will be weaker if we leave. "That’s a huge risk to Britain – to British families; to British jobs – and it’s irreversible. A New Statesman Article suggested it was a deliberate Remain tactic to encourage the idea it was not advisory. “Project Fear” endured as George Osborne and Alistair Darling united to warn of an ultra-austere “Brexit Budget”. Remain believed that its warning of an “irreversible” choice would swing voters its way in the final week. It didn’t.
I thought the same. I'd imagine that this forum is skewed towards the younger and more highly educated than average, which would both suggest a bias towards remain. Online opinion polls need to correct for similar things.
Apologies if I am assuming you were too young to vote at the time, but the situation then was that Ted Heath in particular had been preparing us for European Economic Community Membership for some time...decimalisation of the currency in 1971 was the starting point....no obvious imperative reason, Britain had traded with worldwide decimalised economies for centuries without problems...with hindsight, the imperative, was preparing us for adopting the then secret but planned Euro currency . Heath knew he would lose a vote to take us in, so did it without a referendum...by the time Labour had been elected very little seemed to have changed, from what I can remember the national press on all sides were supportive and failed to mention that we had basically shafted our Commonwealth friends...one Australian State lost 90% of its dairy exports virtually overnight ....no one in 1975 mentioned that in less than 15 years time we would be in a European Union....but they knew, as Cabinet papers now prove.
Cracking analogy...because that's exactly the deal we had with New Zealand before we shafted them by joining the EEC.
Keeping it short and sweet... It has already been mentioned about accountability and the ability to get shut of a poor government. A decent opposition party would wipe the floor with the tories. The UK is starting to devolve away from the superstate idea. Scottish devolution etc. Who exactly are those five presidents et al accountable to? The Eu superstate thats evolving is the richer countries eg UK propping up the poorer countries with low wages and/or high unemployment. And if it doesnt affect me barring tax them the same could be said of you and cou tless others.(something brussellz wants to start setting) So why bother with elections and referendums at all? Is there any point?
And the British people, media nor Govt gave two hoots about a tiny island half a world away. You can see the double standards hypocrisy and irony interlaced into my comparison. Which i'm glad about, that was precisely the point.
It was a dreadful campaign, for many reasons and very well documented in "All Out War". It also documents the extreme lengths Dominic Cummings openly went to in order to mislead the public. Several times leave MP's said "you can't say that, it's not true". On each of those instances, his response was, so what, keep saying it, it will win us the referendum. The claims he endorsed and pushed all featured around migration. There are of course people who voted for sovereignty or perception of a different tomorrow. As I've sadly seen at first hand, in Barnsley and elsewhere, many people voted for very different reasons.
I doubt many people even considered it before or during the campaign...both the Govt and the Remain campaign made it clear it was binding. I quote from the 'Stronger in' Campaign If Britain opts to leave Europe we will immediately begin negotiations with the European Commission about our exit from the European Union. This vote is irreversible Read more at https://www.strongerin.co.uk/the_referendum#LS0PrFMY2RhTH1iS.99 Or LEAVING the EU is an 'irreversible decision' that would do lasting damage to the UK economy, David Cameron has warned. "Quitting Europe is a risk to your family's future because a vote to leave on Thursday means there is no going back on Friday. Vote Remain." Tony Blair said: “Britain faces a historic choice between prosperity, influence and security as part of Europe, or a reckless leap in the dark and years of damaging uncertainty. “If we vote to leave, there is no going back. Tim Farron.. "Tomorrow is about the future of Britain as an outstanding, outward-looking and tolerant nation."This is the biggest decision of a generation. "Our children and grandchildren will have to live with the consequences" Alistair Darling for Britain Stronger in Europe Campaign The decision we make will affect generations to come. And remember this: the decision is final. If we’re out, we’re out. That’s it. So how anyone could have thought at the time that it was purely advisory when the whole Remain campaign were telling us it was irreversible I fail to see. The first mention I remember of "Advisory" was in the days after Remain lost.[/QUOTE] If people are so stupid that they don’t understand the laws that govern our country where all referendums can only be advisory then perhaps they shouldn’t be voting on constitutional matters. People who voted for the sovereignty of parliament then whinge about the sovereignty of U.K. parliament. A perverse genius. You understand that whatever an individual politician says they cannot bypass U.K. constitutional law I take it? No referendum can ever be binding.
'Parliament can not bind it's successors' is one of the oldest and most immutable rules of our (unwritten) constitution. I admit there is an argument to be had about public trust in politicians if they go against what are perceived to have been their promises, but the referendum was, and could only have been advisory. No amount of pre-referendum statements could have altered that fact. They would merely have been a misstatement of the true legal position.
So Australia with its HUGE population back in the 70's was the major reason we shouldnt have entered the common market ???? Strange...
If people are so stupid that they don’t understand the laws that govern our country where all referendums can only be advisory then perhaps they shouldn’t be voting on constitutional matters. People who voted for the sovereignty of parliament then whinge about the sovereignty of U.K. parliament. A perverse genius. You understand that whatever an individual politician says they cannot bypass U.K. constitutional law I take it? No referendum can ever be binding.[/QUOTE] Slight correction, JC, referendums can be binding but it must be explicitly stated in the referendum act to be so. IIRC the AV referendum was but the brexit one wasn't.
Leave/remain to one side for a moment. Was it a coincidence that the referendum was called off the back of the EUs Anti-Tax Avoidance legislation being announced (and which coincidently comes in next year)? Cameron tried his hardest to stop the EU including off-shore trusts, that so many of his chums use, in the scope of the legislation. Reece-Mog has an investment company that encourages the use of such vehicles. The pro-Brexit press is owned by businessmen who make use of such Trusts and Cameron seems to like to hang around with these people.
But the campaigns were run, both sides on that basis. The leaders only had their interests in mind. But i can rephrase the question maybe to see the response which im genuinely interested in. What specifically did people vote for that they believed would benefit the country?
Slight correction, JC, referendums can be binding but it must be explicitly stated in the referendum act to be so. IIRC the AV referendum was but the brexit one wasn't.[/QUOTE] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referendums_in_the_United_Kingdom No referendum if any kind even post legislative ones can ever be binding. As above no parliament can ever bind its successors and parliament will always be sovereign though a post legislative one would be pretty hard to deny. Not that I think that should stop Brexit. If that were the only issue. The vast range of criminal activity should mean a second ref is called.